Issues in MetonymySection 1

Problems in the characterization of metonymies and in the creation of a

detailed typology of metonymy

Antonio Barcelona(University of Córdoba)

Introduction

A. Description of section

- Three 20 minute presentations (Antonio Barcelona, Olga Blanco and Isabel Hernández) on various topics in our metonymy database entry model

B. Aim of this section

• To report on an aspect of our ongoing work to develop the database: the establishment of a set of criteria to characterize each metonymy

• Criteria: registered in our database entry model

• We have already developed a rich set of criteria (Blanco, Barcelona and Hernández, in press) and

• Applied it to 200 metonymies registered in the specialized literature.

C. Brief description of research project partially reported on in the session

PROJECT FFI2012-36523 (continues earlier project FFI-2008-04585 from 2013):

An empirical investigation into the role of conceptual metonymy in grammar, discourse and sign language. Compilation of a metonymy database.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: ANTONIO BARCELONA SÁNCHEZ (UCO)

MEMBERS: PILAR GUERRERO MEDINA (UCO)CARMEN PORTERO MUÑOZ (UCO)OLGA BLANCO CARRIÓN (UCO)ISABEL HERNÁNDEZ GOMARIZ (UCO)EVA LUCÍA JIMÉNEZ NAVARRO (UCO)*ANA LAURA RODRÍGUEZ REDONDO (UCM)Mª DEL CARMEN GUARDDON ANELO (UNED)ALMUDENA SOTO NIETO*MARIA SOLEDAD CRUZ MARTÍNEZ*CARLOS HERNÁNDEZ SIMÓN*ANDREA MARIELA MARTÍNEZ FIGUEROA*

*From 2013

Aims of this publicly funded research project

MAIN AIM:

To investigate systematically:

- the functioning of conceptual metonymy across a variety of authentic discourse samples - in two oral languages (English and Spanish)

- and in two sign languages (American Sign Language and Spanish Sign Language).

Main aim broken down into a series of SECONDARY AIMS:

- One of them: Compilation of a detailed annotated database of mainly basic and higher-level conceptual metonymies on the basis of:

- metonymies registered in specialized literature on metonymy and

- our own corpus-based research on authentic discourse. •This database may be the basis for the development of a detailed typology of metonymy beyond a mere list of metonymies roughly grouped into types.•It may constitute a useful reference tool for the academic community

D- Present stage in the development of this annotated database

• After an “internal training” period, used to acquire practice and refine the criteria,

• an initial annotated database

• now we are completing the full database

• We have just begun to develop a digital, web-based version of the database entry model (still under construction)

E- The entry model and a simple example of its application to the analysis of one

metonymy• This entry model has gone through successive

minor revisions.• Entry model: 8-1-10 version entry model

(revision june 2013)

(also as handout) (recent changes to be applied in new entries are in red)

• An example of a completed entry: As much. The model will still suffer some minor changes, due to further refinements and to its digital implementation, which will affect especially the form of fields 9 (chaining) and 11(interaction).

An important point: A single entry is assigned to only one conceptual metonymy each time:

- Example: noun crude meaning “crude oil”. Author (Radden, 2005): this expression is based on two conceptual metonymies.

- One of them (PART OF A FORM FOR THE FULL FORM) has been analyzed in one entry.

- The other metonymy (PROPERTY OF AN ENTITY FOR THE ENTITY), claimed by Radden to motivate the “crude oil” meaning of this expression, has been analyzed in a different entry.

-What to do when the same conceptual metonymy is invoked by several different papers in the literature and illustrated by means of different examples?– One different entry then

Problems in the characterization of metonymies and in the creation of a detailed typology of metonymy

Illustration / Discussion of fields 1, 2-10, 3,

and 4.

Antonio Barcelona

University of Córdoba

Field 1

1. Category label (to be reproduced exactly from the source book/article at the lowest level mentioned by the author, if more than one are mentioned by her/him): EFFECT FOR CAUSE, etc.

• Normally not problematic.• A potentially frequent problem: two different papers

use different labels for the same conceptual metonymy (this affects especially fields 1, 2 and 10). Solution: comparison and unification (but recording original label in “Addit. Remarks, Field 1).

• Another problem: Sometimes no actual label is used by the author. Then we have to assign one.

Example in Panther & Thornburg’s (2007) description of Buckingham Palace as metonymic when referring to the Queen or her staff.

We described it (in field 2, at the high level in the hierarchy) as LOCATION FOR LOCATED, so this is the label used in Field 2 (it will eventually be entered in field 2, after “unification”):

Field 2

2. Hierarchical level: Generic/ high / basic / low level, with various possible degrees of specificity

• Normally this field is quite problematic • The decisions made so far about it in many

entries will be revised because our analytical criteria have now become more sophisticated.

• The number of sub-levels is still not clear, although so far we have not found it necessary to go beyond three sub-levels for the “High”, “Basic” and “Low” levels (see Entry Model, handout).

• An unproblematic example again is Buckingham Palace: Buckingham Palace.doc

• A problematic example: Morpheme –ful (as in “You are a fine armful now, Mary, with those twenty pounds you’ve gained”).

Initial version of field 2 for the relevant metonymy:

Hierarchical level: Initial version of Field 2 for DEGREE TO WHICH A CONTAINER IS FILLED FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S

CONTENT, as illustrated by armful in You are a fine armful now, Mary, with those twenty pounds you’ve gained

Generic

PART FOR PART

 ↓

Top High

EVENT FOR CO-OCCURRING EVENT 

 ↓High

FILLING A CONTAINER FOR INCREASE IN CONTENT’S QUANTITY 

 ↓Basic

DEGREE TO WHICH A CONTAINER IS FILLED FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S CONTENT

 ↓ 

Low

DEGREE TO WHICH AN ARM IS FILLED WITH SOMEBODY’S WAIST FOR THE MASS (A MEASURE, A QUANTITY) OF THAT PERSON’S WAIST

 

• Problems (typical problems in this field):

- Mixing of a taxonomic hierarchy (“kind of”) with a meronymic hierarchy (“part of”): lower levels should be either in a kind-of or a part-of relation with higher levels.

- In principle: use only “kind-of” hierarchies.

- A “kind of” hierarchy including the metonymy under analysis:

- “fullness”: a SCALAR property of an entity (arm) with a role (container) (implies degree)

- “amount”: also a SCALAR property of an entity (a person’s body region) with a role (content).

- Is the metonymy FULLNESS OF A CONTAINER ENTITY FOR QUANTITY OF CONTAINER’S CONTENT (i.e. DEGREE OF FILLING…) identical to, or just connected to, but different from, other metonymic hierarchies involving verticality and / or containers?

- Examples:

- HEIGHT (on a vertical scale) FOR QUANTITY:

My pile of books reached the ceiling (fullness implies more than height):

- verticality is highlighted in events of “piling”, less so in those of filling.

- CONTAINER FOR CONTENT:

I drank a cup of coffee (a certain type of container is a metonymic source for a degree of quantity)

vs. I drank the whole cupful (a degree of fullness – the maximum degree- is a metonymic source for a degree of quantity; only the level of fullness of the container seems to be profiled, the container remaining in the background – in the base).

Full file for this entry: Morpheme {ful}.doc

Further problem (among others):

Basic criterion to assign a metonymy to a major level or to a sublevel: in general, we are supposed to recognize a major level when a metonymy seems to initiate a new subordinate hierarchy: PROPERTY (and subtypes)>>> FULLNESS (and subtypes).All of these and other problems are very frequently encountered when completing this field (see Blanco et al).A further example (with hierarchy revised: oral communication is an activity, a type of event): By word of mouth (done by Almudena Soto; revised A. Barcelona).

Field 1010. Conceptual connections to other metonymic

hierarchies. Can the metonymy be included in other hierarchies apart from those in field 2?

- This field has also often proved problematic.- The problems are similar to those affecting

field 2 (thus no need to discuss).- An unproblematic example is again

- Field 2: Basic level: LOCATION FOR LOCATED- Field 10: Basic level: CONTAINER FOR

CONTENT

An interesting case: •Those active zone metonymies whose target is a “relationship” (Langacker) or “proposition” involving the source:

• started the book in “East of Eden was originally titled The Salinas Valley because Steinbeck started the book as a history of his family”. (“started writing the book”)

• liked the dictionary in “I liked the dictionary as I could find most of the terms I looked for”. (“liked checking words up in it”).(Entry done by Carmen Portero; revised by A. Barcelona)

• They can be regarded as being in a PART FOR WHOLE or a WHOLE FOR PART hierarchy:• PART FOR WHOLE: source entity is seen as

a part of the relationship involving it.• WHOLE FOR PART: the source entity is a

WHOLE activating its contextually relevant “part”, its active zone: the relationship involving it.

Fields 2 and 10 of entry:

Field 33. Purely-schematic, typical, prototypical

(Barcelona 2011]). • Though potentially problematic, this field has

turned out to be easy to apply so far, as most of the metonymies analyzed are, in terms of Barcelona (2003, 2011), either “typical” or “prototypical”.

• Technical notions. Only an informal description here.

• “Purely schematic”: Target is a relatively “primary” subdomain of source in WHOLE FOR

PART metonymies, as in This book is highly instructive• These metoymies are controversial, as they are close to

literal use. (Barcelona 2011)

• “Typical”:• A metonymy whose target is clearly

distinct from the source, either because it is a relatively secondary subdomain of the source, as in certain WHOLE FOR PART metonymies such as (1),

(1) The pill has reduced the birth rate in many countries. (PILL [CATEGORY] FOR BIRTH CONTROL

PILL [MEMBER]) • or because it is not included in it, as in PART

FOR WHOLE metonymies like (2),

(2) She’s just a pretty face. (SALIENT BODY PART

FOR PERSON; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 37)

or as in PART FOR PART metonymies like (3):

(3) The coke felt as stimulating a drink as a cup of tea. (PART [CONTAINER] FOR PART [CONTENT]; Kövecses and Radden (1998: 57: container and content are two parts of the “Containment” ICM)

“Prototypical”: A referential typical metonymy, whose target and referent is an individual entity, or a collection of individual entities:

(4) We have seen a couple of new faces around lately. (PART [SALIENT BODY PART] FOR WHOLE [PERSON]

- A complementary prototype account of metonymy: Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006).

- Example of the application of field 3: Entry for interstate (interstate highway”), as in “If you have ever driven west on Interstate 70 from Denver to the Continental Divide, you have seen Mount Bethel.”

• - Metonymy (Barcelona 2005, 2009); DISTINCTIVE POLITICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL PROPERTY (LINKING TWO STATES) OF A HIGHWAY FOR THE HIGHWAY.

Field 4• Examples of the metonymy offered by the author at

any of the hierarchical levels discussed by her/him. • Label each example to indicate the taxonomic

domain (feelings, objects, geographical entities, actions, etc.) activated by the target.

Examples: - The buses (“the bus drivers”), as in The

buses are on strike, instantiating OBJECT USED FOR USER (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).

Entry done by Isabel Hernández; revised A Barcelona

- Skirt for “woman”, as in He is a skirt chaser, instantiating CLOTHES FOR PEOPLE (a submetonymy of OBJECT USED FOR USER, where the object used is a piece of clothing).

The author only provides de-contextualized examples (a frequent situation in the literature).

(Entry done by Almudena Soto; revised by A Barcelona)

Example of a manual search

• Digital database under construction. • Example of type of searches that will be done

digitally:

Field 4: Taxonomic domains activated by means of the target expressions in a sample of entries (30 entries)

• Metonymies in the sample.• Table 1: Metonymies, examples and domains.• Search results.

–SUMMED UP IN THIS GRAPH:

References

• Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. “Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update”, in Dirven, René and Ralf Pörings (eds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 207 –277.

• Barcelona, Antonio. 2003. “Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals”, in Cuyckens, Hubert; Klaus-Uwe Panther; and Thomas Berg (eds), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 223 –255.

• Barcelona, Antonio. 2005. “The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains”, in Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Sandra Peña Cervel (eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.313 –352.

• Barcelona, Antonio. 2009 “Metonymy in constructional meaning and form: Its motivational and inferential roles”, in Panther, Klaus; Linda Thornburg; and Antonio Barcelona, (eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. (Human Cognitive Processing.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 363-401.

• Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. “Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy”, in Benczes, Réka; Antonio Barcelona; and Francisco-José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, (eds). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 7-57.

• Blanco Carrión,Olga; Antonio Barcelona Sánchez; and Isabel Hernández Gomáriz. In press. “Applying the entry model in a detailed database of metonymy: A discussion of the problems involved.” Linguistics Applied 6, thematic isssue The character and use of figurative language edited by Christina Alm-Arvius, Nils-Lennart Johansson and David C. Minugh.

• Brdar, Mario. 2007. Metonymy in Grammar. Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek (Croatia): Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.

• Kövecses, Zoltán, and Günter Radden. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 37 –77.

• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Peirsman. Yves, and Dirk Geeraerts . 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17-3, 269-316.

• Radden, Günter. 2005. “The ubiquity of metonymy”. In Otal Campo, José Luis; Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi; and Bellés Fortuño, Begoña, eds., Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy”. Castelló (Spain): Universitat Jaume I,11-28.

THANK YOU!